Gross Misconduct

[enquirer]

Re: Gross Misconduct

There's the first interview, then the two that follow both start with "agreed first interviewee's account"

That's flagrant collusion. You can hang them out to dry with this.

Not quite "not guilty". Its "not guilty of the charges that you were asked to answer but guilty of something different".

Charge: Gross Misconduct. Verdict: Not Guilty. If they wanted to look at something else, they should have done so the first time around.

My initial reaction was to suggest that she appeal it but when I calmed down it occurred to me that the panel's decision could be considered reasonable by an employment tribunal.

Possible, but doubtful, given what you have posted earlier regarding their chaotic procedures, lack of training records, etcetera.

[bedlington83]

Re: Gross Misconduct

Thanks for the perspective again enquirer

Charge: Gross Misconduct. Verdict: Not Guilty. If they wanted to look at something else, they should have done so the first time around.

Or dismissed the gross misconduct then laid properly constructed allegations re performance and started the process from scratch

[bedlington83]

Re: Gross Misconduct

Just to clarify;

They should have been separate statements, not amendments to the original. Looking at the statements, is there evidence of collusion?

There are no statements. When I say notes I mean precisely that; the notes that the investigator took while interviewing which were then typed up